Agenda item

4.1

Lord Mayor’s Announcements

4.1.1

The Lord Mayor (Councillor Colin Ross) made a plea in relation to the conduct of the business relating to the terrible situation in Israel and Palestine, where views on the matter would be strongly held and expressed at the meeting.  He reported that the previous day, he had presided over a citizenship ceremony where he had been proud to welcome, as new UK citizens, people from over 20 countries from all around the world.  In that ceremony he had emphasised Sheffield’s status as a City of Sanctuary and how its diverse communities all contribute to the life of the city.  He asked that participants at this meeting be mindful of the effect that words can have and not to allow the debate at this meeting to disrupt the community spirit and harmony that exists in the city.  Furthermore, to be respectful to others in the Council Chamber, and he added that he was aware that some Councillors had, regrettably, been subjected to threats and abuse in recent days.

The Lord Mayor also reminded elected Members of the Public Sector Equality Duty under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, including the duty to foster good relations between persons who share a protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.

4.1.2

At the conclusion of the meeting, reference was made to the tragic accident that happened at the Sheffield Arena during the Sheffield Steelers ice hockey match on Saturday 28 October, where Nottingham Panthers player, Adam Johnson, sadly lost his life. The Lord Mayor reported that the Leader of the Council and Chief Executive had written to both teams involved offering the Council’s heartfelt sympathy and condolences to the player’s loved ones and to the Nottingham Panthers and Sheffield Steelers teams and staff.

4.2

Petitions and Public Questions

The Lord Mayor (Councillor Colin Ross) reported that one petition was to be received at the meeting and questions would be taken from 15 members of the public.  The petition and questions submitted by nine members of the public related either directly to, or as a consequence of, the conflict in Gaza.  He would firstly deal with the questions on subject matters other than the conflict in Gaza, and then receive the petition and questions regarding the conflict.  The debate on item 8 on the agenda (Notice of Motion Regarding “Stopping Genocide in Gaza”) would then be taken as the next item of business.

4.3

Public Questions (On Various Topics)

4.3.1

Question from Josh Cheeseman

“In light of the ongoing concerns over human rights in the People’s Republic of China, including, but not limited to:-

·        The violation of the right to freedom of speech and assembly (notably within Hong Kong, under the National Security Law where Chow Hang-tung was sentenced to 15 months in prison for a social media post).

·        Restrictions on the freedom of expression, persecution of human rights defenders (like legal scholar Xu Zhiyong).

·        Suppression of freedom of religion & expression of culture (not least those of the Uyghurs and Kazakhs).

·        Harassing members of the LGBT community, including Tsinghua University students for leaving rainbow flags on the campus.

·        Its continued position as the world’s leading state executioner.

Does the Council feel it appropriate to retain its twinning with the Chinese cities of Anshan and Chengdu, and its Trade & Collaboration Agreements with the cities of Daqing and Nanchang?”

In response, the Leader of the Council (Councillor Tom Hunt) confirmed that Sheffield had twinned with Anshan in 1983 and whilst the two cities remain twin cities, there had been extremely limited engagement with Anshan since 2006.  He added that the relationship with Chengdu was one of Sheffield’s more recent international partnerships which was established in 2010 and the collaboration agreements with Daqing and Nanchang were signed in 2016, both for an initial 3-year period, but none of those agreements had subsequently been renewed.

Councillor Hunt stated that, earlier this year, the Council’s Strategy and Resources Policy Committee had agreed to undertake a full review of the Council’s twinning relationships and partnership arrangements with cities and places across the world.  He added that a report on the outcome of that review was scheduled for submission to the meeting of the Strategy and Resources Policy Committee to be held on 20th November 2023.

4.3.2

Question from Clara Cheung

“Has Sheffield Council had any exchanges or dialogues about protection of human rights at municipal level, with the cities in the People’s Republic of China that hold twin-city relationship or a collaboration agreement with Sheffield (i.e. Anshan, Chengdu, Daqing and Nanchang)?  If so, can you please tell us more about the details? If not, why not?  Besides, what other exchanges or dialogues has Sheffield Council had with these cities?”

In response, the Leader of the Council (Councillor Tom Hunt) stated that there had not been any dialogue in respect of human rights at a municipal level with representatives from any of the four named cities, and he added that, due to budgetary constraints and the ending of the Council’s dedicated Sheffield China Business Programme, there had not been any active engagement with any of the cities in recent years. 

He reported that, together with Kate Martin, the Council’s Executive Director for City Futures, he had met with the Manchester Chinese Consul-General on 17th October 2023 and this had been a short meeting to facilitate introductions. He confirmed that human rights had not been discussed during that short meeting but added that human rights concerns would be taken into account in the review of Sheffield’s twinning relationships and partnership arrangements which he had referred to earlier at the meeting and which was due to be discussed by the Strategy and Resources Policy Committee on 20th November.

4.3.3

Question from Simon Jenkins

“My question is regarding Minimum Service Levels. As the onus is on the employer to bring in a Minimum Service Level during industrial action, can the Council confirm if they or any of their outsourced partners will be using this legislation and has there been any discussion with central government regarding this?”

In response, the Leader of the Council (Councillor Tom Hunt) confirmed that no work had been undertaken with regards to minimum service levels at the Council and he was not aware that any of its contractors had undertaken this work either.

Councillor Hunt stated that in his view the Government’s proposals for minimum service levels in the event of a strike action would place severe and unacceptable restrictions on the fundamental right of workers to take industrial action to defend their pay and conditions.  He believed that the proposals were unfair and undemocratic, were likely to put the UK in breach of international legal commitments, would make disputes harder to solve and lead to more frequent and longer periods of strike action.  He stated that he was committed to working with the trades unions to explore every possible option to avert the prospect of work notices being issued within the Council and added that his Party was opposed to the Government’s proposals on this matter.

4.3.4

Question from Calvin Payne

“Six years ago this week, I was convicted on three counts of contempt of court for standing up to the Council's 'unwise' legal approach and proceedings. Six months ago I, despite some misgivings, went along with the process the Council set out for personal apologies and mitigation. Part of this process was explained by the Leader and Chief Executive to the Strategy and Resources Policy Committee on June 19^th when they wrote:

"The Council understands that this unwise course of action had serious implications for the small number of people who were found in breach of the injunctions. The Council will contact these people directly and work with them to do everything possible to mitigate any ongoing impact."

I would like to ask the Leader of the Council if he is satisfied that SCC have worked with me to do everything possible to mitigate the ongoing impact, and whether he can tell me specifically what actions the Council have taken to achieve this.”

Mr. Payne added that the stated deadline for the Council to provide personal apologies was 31^st October, but he had not yet been offered his personal apology.  He also referred to the fact that Council representatives had not been held responsible for their actions in the dispute as they had since left the Council, whereas the campaigners were continuing to have to face the consequences of their actions.  He did, however, acknowledge the fact that the Council’s General Counsel had met with him on a couple of occasions recently, him being the only Council representative to do so.

In response, the Leader of the Council (Councillor Tom Hunt) acknowledged the impact the proceedings had had on Mr Payne and others who were subject to legal action by the Council.  He advised that the Council was keen to mitigate the impact of its actions, which it had made clear in its response to the Lowcock report, and that he had been personally involved in the apology process.  He stated that he was aware that Mr Payne had met with the General Counsel in relation to an appropriately worded apology taking into account Mr Payne’s experience, as well as the offer of specific and general support to explain the circumstances should Mr. Payne encounter any difficulties in the future as a result of the Court’s findings, and that Mr. Payne had provided information to the General Counsel that he wanted to be taken into account.  Councillor Hunt stated that those matters should be finalised soon.  He stated that, whilst this process had taken longer than was ideal, the Council was aiming to progress all the apologies in a consistent way, and he added that he would be happy to have a follow up conversation with Mr Payne to help improve the process.

4.3.5

Questions from Isabel O’ Leary

1.  “Cross-departmental working

The Lowcock Report revealed that a large part of the reason for the Streets Ahead Contract being so flawed in relation to street trees was that one department (in this case, Highways) did not consult with any other departments (for example, the Ecology Unit) when writing or agreeing the Contract. This kind of working in silos is commonplace in large organisations but is not good practice. At the risk of sounding as though I’m setting an essay question, can you reassure me that cross departmental working is becoming embedded in Sheffield City Council by giving me at least 3 examples of current projects that do involve true collaboration between several different departments. I am particularly interested in projects that are using the expertise of the Ecology Unit.

2.  Partnership with communities

The Lowcock Report recommended that the Council should sustain and embed its recent emphasis on partnership, local engagement and consultation. I’m not sure how well this is going. I have been following issues about Graves and Hillsborough Parks and have attended meetings of the Charity Trustee Sub-Committee which is the sole body administering a number of Charities, including several Sheffield Parks. The members of this Sub-Committee are all Sheffield City Councillors and membership is solely Councillors. Whilst I welcome the very recent decision of the Charity Trustee Sub-Committee to form a partnership with 2 community groups, I do wonder whether decisions and action to restore the café building in Graves Park could have been arrived at much more quickly than the 15 months it has taken, if these local community groups had been listened to earlier.

In order to inject some vigour into the bureaucratic paralysis of Council processes, would the Council consider co-opting members of Friends or other community groups onto the Charity Trustee Sub-Committee at a much earlier stage when considering issues in which those groups have knowledge, expertise and conduits for local consultation?

3.  Accountability

I welcomed the setting up of the Lowcock Independent Inquiry into the Street Tree Dispute. However, the recommendations of the Lowcock Report were remarkably mild in the light of the damning evidence of Council practices, including the unreasonable and disproportionate use of their legal powers, specifically the aggressive pursuit of Injunctions against residents trying to prevent the unnecessary felling of street trees.

This issue of Governmental bodies or Local Authorities using their greater legal and financial power to intimidate environmental protestors is a very live one nationally.  I would like other Local Authorities to learn from the Sheffield experience that taking out injunctions against residents involved in environmental protests is a bad idea. However, despite the apologies extensively reported in the press, as these apologies are being made by the current leaders of the Council and not by those who were responsible for those bad decisions at the time, the message so far to public servants is that they can leave a post and move to another post in another city without any personal consequences.

We know from the Lowcock Report who was ultimately responsible for pursuing Injunctions against the street tree protestors. Will the Council leaders publicly, without breaching GDPR, use their well-resourced and effective Communications department to ask those who were responsible for the wrongful decisions to apologise? This might go some way to restoring the Council’s reputation by showing a desire for accountability.”

In response, the Leader of the Council (Councillor Tom Hunt) stated that cross departmental working within Sheffield City Council was vital for enabling progress to be made on the things that the Council wanted to achieve and that was why one of its core organisational values was “Together We Get Things Done”.  He added that this value was guiding how the Council was operating across its services and with a range of partners on many projects.  Councillor Hunt stated that in order to provide a sufficient level of detail in response to the specific question about projects which involve collaboration between several different departments, he would ensure a written response would be provided to Ms O’Leary, and he commented that one such example was likely to be the work being undertaken in one area in the north of the city involving a “team around the place” where different teams have come together to focus on a particular locality.

Regarding partnership with communities, Councillor Hunt stated that the Lowcock Report was clear that the Council as an organisation had not always been good at listening to the views of its communities and actively engaging citizens in decision making, and the lack of involvement of citizens had led to many of the issues in the street trees dispute.  Councillor Hunt stated that this was something that the Council was actively seeking to rectify and was now working hard to ensure that different perspectives and views were heard as policy and projects were being developed.  He added that there were good examples of where this was happening and he referred to the city’s new autism partnership, which includes neurodiverse participants and is co-chaired by a neurodiverse person.  He commented that the Local Area Committees provided opportunities for citizens to discuss local issues and shape the development of solutions to problems.

Councillor Hunt acknowledged that more work was needed to ensure that voices of citizens are heard and included in the decision-making processes of the Council and he added that the Governance Committee would be considering public involvement and participation as part of its work plan over the coming months. One aspect of this work was to review the public questions processes to improve dialogue with citizens in the formal meetings of the Council.  He added that the work would also include consideration of the specific points raised about the Charity Trustee Sub-Committee and a further written response would be provided following the outcome of that consideration.

In relation to the question concerning accountability, Councillor Hunt stated that the Lowcock Inquiry and report aimed to provide a process of “truth and reconciliation” to allow the city to move on from the consequences of the Council’s mistakes.  Apologies were an important part of this and a process was being undertaken to ensure they were delivered to everybody identified by the report, and also to others who had requested them.  He commented that the Lowcock report had stated that the apologies should come from the Council and this was what the Council had agreed it should do on the basis that it was the Council that made the mistakes identified by the Inquiry.  He added that had the Inquiry determined that individual apologies were needed for the process, then this would have been recommended in the Lowcock report.  Councillor Hunt understood the call being made for apologies to be made by officers and councillors who were involved at the time, and confirmed that this had been considered by the Council but that, as a current and ex-employer, the Council holds legal duties and, on balance, believes that asking those individuals for personal apologies was not the right thing to do.  He accepted that some people would be disappointed by that stance, but he reiterated that the Council had come to a considered opinion on that matter and he confirmed that this does not undermine the sincerity with which the Council is progressing the work to rectify the mistakes made and to provide its apologies to individuals.

4.3.6

(NOTE: Questions which had been submitted by Michael Mullin, but which had not been asked at the meeting due to his absence, would receive a written response from the Leader of the Council (Councillor Tom Hunt) and be published on the website.)

4.4

Petition Demanding An Apology and Action From the Council For Raising the Israeli Flag

The Council received a petition containing 1,316 signatures demanding an apology and action from Sheffield City Council for raising the Israeli flag.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners was made by Julie Pearn who asked the Leader of the Council to write to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to ask for an immediate cease fire in Gaza and access for humanitarian aid. She gave some examples of occasions and locations in Israel where the Israeli flag is displayed, including on illegal settlements in the West Bank, and stated that the flag represents racism and desecration to Muslims.  She stated that the current situation in Gaza constituted ethnic cleansing and genocide, which had led to the flying of the flag causing such outrage to people in Sheffield. An unequivocal apology from Councillors Tom Hunt and Shaffaq Mohammed, for what was considered to be a divisive and provocative action, was expected. She felt that the country’s parliamentary leaders, in calling for a humanitarian pause, were out of step with the views of the public and she called for all Councillors to make a unanimous call for peace and for the upholding of international law.

The petition was referred to the Leader of the Council (Councillor Tom Hunt) to respond.  Councillor Hunt made the following statement:-

“Thank you for your petition and thank you to everyone who has come here today to share your views about the tragic events that are taking place in Israel and Palestine.  I know that this issue is very important to communities within Sheffield.  I feel deep sadness about the heartbreaking events taking place. I know we all do. 

On October 7^th a brutal, appalling terrorist attack was committed by Hamas.  An attack that shocked the world and I utterly condemn it. More Jewish people were killed on October 7th than on any day since the Holocaust.  The flag of Israel was flown to show solidarity with the victims of that attack.  Raising the flag was not about endorsing any actions taken by the Netanyahu government either before or after October 7^th. A Government that has a shameful record of human rights abuses and that has shown little interest in securing peace in the Middle East.  Nor was this about taking sides in a decades long conflict.  This was about showing solidarity with the victims of a terror attack, and it was a decision that was taken before the heavy bombardment of Gaza and the ground assaults had begun.

The flag was flown on Tuesday 10^th October.  It was to be flown for one day and one day only, until 8pm when it was to be taken down.  We could – and should – have been clearer about that at the time.  I know that this matters to many people.  I understand why people feel that this was not the right thing to do and I fully respect people's right to hold that view.  That’s why it’s important for me to set out the Council’s decision-making process for flying a flag.

Sheffield has a flag protocol – a document that governs the flying of flags at the Town Hall and other Council buildings.  The protocol states clearly that in normal circumstances, the Union Flag will be flown from the Town Hall. I am proud of this.  It also states that there are special circumstances when other flags may be flown for a short period of time.  These are as follows:-

1.       The national flag of another country may be flown when there is an official civic or other delegation from that country, and it is deemed appropriate to do so.

2.       A particular flag may be flown when required to do so by the Government or other official body.

3.       A special flag (other than a national flag) may be flown in celebration of a major occasion or achievement of importance to the Council and/or the City of Sheffield.

The protocol sets out that the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, will determine any requests for the flying of flags over the Town Hall.  On October 8^th – a day after Hamas’ deadly assault - the UK Government asked local authorities to consider flying the flag of Israel as an act of solidarity until 8pm on October 10th. This meant that our flag protocol came into force.

In line with the protocol, the Chief Executive sought my view, but in recognition of the fact that I lead a three-party administration, the Chief Executive also sought the view of the two other main group leaders – Councillor Shaffaq Mohammed as Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group and Councillor Douglas Johnson as Leader of the Green Group. On balance, Councillor Mohammed and I were both willing to support the Government ask and to fly the flag. Councillor Johnson did not support that view.  So, on that basis, the decision to fly the flag was taken to show solidarity with the victims of Hamas’ brutal attack on civilians.

Other local authorities also flew the flag of Israel, including the three other councils in South Yorkshire.  Around the country, other councils lit up public buildings such as their Town Hall or libraries, which we do not currently have the ability to do without several days’ notice.  I know that not everyone agreed with the decision that was made here in Sheffield.  The decision was taken in good faith and of course, I and others have reflected on it over the last few weeks as the horror of what we saw in Israel on October 7^th has been followed by the horror of what is happening in Gaza.

Today, I extend my deep sympathy and solidarity to everyone who is grieving, hurting and suffering trauma in Israel and Palestine but also here in Sheffield.  How we express our solidarity and whether it is right to express solidarity are two different things.  It was right to show solidarity, but I recognise that this act of solidarity caused hurt for some people.  I also recognise that some people think local authorities shouldn’t fly any flags at all.  But I also know that there are many people in Sheffield who greatly appreciated this act of solidarity, including people in our Jewish community, many of whom have friends and family who have been deeply affected by the events on the 7^th.

Flying the flag was not a straightforward decision and it has prompted a range of responses and heartfelt emotions.  I do not believe that in this difficult moment it helps us if an apology was to be issued for the act of showing solidarity with the victims of a terrorist attack. It would cause further upset and hurt at a time when we need to come together.

As a council, and as Leader of the Council, I am firmly of the view that we should always review our actions and decision-making processes to ensure we take the right decisions, informed by the right advice.  So, it is right that our flag protocol is now to be reviewed, and this will now happen.

Whilst in taking this decision we had regard to our legal duties under the Public Sector Equality Act, as part of the review of the flag protocol, we will look at including a requirement to undertake a formal written Equality Impact Assessment and/or have regard to a Community Tension Impact Assessment via the Police, to ensure that any decision in the future that we may need to make about flying a flag is properly assessed. Future decisions that need to be made about requests to fly flags should also be made following discussions with representatives of faith and community groups in the city.

What has happened in the three weeks since October 7^th has been utterly heartbreaking. There can be no justification for the loss of innocent lives. There can be no justification for the collective punishment of the people in Palestine.

We need a ceasefire, and we need it now.  We need all hostages to be released and we need humanitarian aid to be allowed into Gaza at scale.  I urge national and international politicians to do everything they can to put pressure to bring about a ceasefire - and to do everything they can to bring people around the table to restart a peace process with the clear aim and outcome of achieving a free and sovereign Palestine alongside a safe and secure Israel.

As a city, I am proud that Sheffield is home to many diverse communities and faiths. Our diversity is our strength.  As Leader of the Council, I commit to do all I can, together with all of my cross-party colleagues, to bring our city together, united for peace and standing up against all forms of hate and racism. Standing together against all forms of racism, including anti-Muslim discrimination and antisemitism, and opposing every effort to divide us. I condemn the abuse that many of my councillor colleagues have received in recent weeks and continue to receive, and I see the pressure you are under.  The task at hand for all of us is to bring people together, to work together, to listen, and to work for peace in all of our communities, as the proud City of Sanctuary that we are.  That is the task I am committed to.”

The Council noted the petition and response from the Leader of the Council.

4.5

Public Questions (On the Situation in Israel and Palestine)

4.5.1

Questions from Abdullah Okud

“What were the reasons behind the decision made to erect the Israeli flag above the Town Hall? This decision demands an answer. Firstly, because it shows that we as the City of Sanctuary condone the false equivalence of the coloniser and the colonised, which is inherently a stance that supports apartheid, racism and genocide and is a deeply worrying position, and not one supported by the people of Sheffield.

Secondly, this has demonstrated that you do not recognise or understand that the violence we witness today is rooted in over seven decades of an oppressive condition and caging of the Palestinian people which is well documented.

Finally, do you agree and uphold the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to resist, as enshrined in UN resolution 2625 as “the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial domination, apartheid and foreign occupation by all available means”.

In response, the Leader of the Council (Councillor Tom Hunt) stated that flying the Israeli flag was not about taking sides but was about showing solidarity with the victims of a terrorist attack. He advised that he agreed with the comments made by the UN General Secretary that the attack did not happen in a vacuum. 

Councillor Hunt outlined that in his view there would be no lasting peace without a negotiated settlement which was grounded in the reality of many decades of conflict, pain and suffering, and he was sure that the resumption of the peace process was what the people of Sheffield wanted.  He added that, in his opinion, the only way to end the suffering of people in Palestine and in Israel is through a political process that would have a two-state solution as its outcome and that he hoped everyone could come together to urge national and international politicians to commit every effort to making that happen.

4.5.2

Question from Derek Martin

“The world just now is a very dangerous and fast changing place.  Things are going on just now that are outside our direct control. However, Sheffield is one of the UKs core cities, and what we say and do does matter.  Collectively with the other core cities we can have a massive influence on the present Government. Sheffield must do the right thing. The situation in Gaza is appalling, nowhere is safe, they have even been issued with evacuation orders for the main hospitals.  This situation cannot go on.

I call on the three leaders of the main political parties in the city to act in unanimity, for Sheffield to lead from the front in calling for an immediate ceasefire, release of hostages and an end to hostilities and to call on the leaders of the other core cities to work together and do the same.”

In response, the Leader of the Council (Councillor Tom Hunt) stated that he was in touch with other Core City leaders and he was sure that other core cities would be holding debates on the matter, as this this Council would be doing later at this meeting. He hoped that the chamber would come together to support motions and amendments that called for an immediate ceasefire, for hostages to be released, and for humanitarian aid to be let into Gaza.

4.5.3

Question from Jasmine Murphy

Prior to asking her question, Jasmine Murphy referred to events on the evening of 10th October which had resulted in a couple of protestors climbing to remove the Israeli flag from the Town Hall and replacing it with the Palestinian flag.  She then asked -

“Seeing that the residents of Sheffield were so horrified by this Council's decision to raise the Israeli flag above the Town Hall on our behalf, without our consent, that some of us took it upon ourselves to remove it at great personal risk, will the Leader of this Council, Councillor Tom Hunt, finally recognise not only that raising it was disrespectful to the people of Sheffield who oppose its apartheid regime, but also, because it was symbolically supportive of Israel's illegal occupation and collective punishment, that it was an act of grave disrespect to the Palestinian victims of these war crimes.  Will he also apologise to the people of Sheffield for this decision?”

Ms Murphy also asked whether Councillor Hunt would consider raising the Palestinian flag in view of the scale of the massacres being inflicted on Gaza by the Israeli forces?

In response, the Leader of the Council (Councillor Tom Hunt) stated that he did not believe that flying the flag had been disrespectful. He was aware some people had disagreed with it, but it had been intended as an act of solidarity with the victims of a terrorist attack. As reported earlier in the meeting, the Council’s flag protocol would be reviewed and having regard to the learning from this recent action would form part of that review process.  He advised that the flag flown was the flag of the state of Israel, rather than of the Israeli government.  He stated that he opposed the actions of the Netanyahu Government and the flying of the flag was not an endorsement of its actions but was in solidarity with the victims of a terrorist act.  He expressed regret that the decision to fly the flag had caused hurt and underlined that, in his view, an apology would risk causing further hurt and driving people further apart at a point when they needed to come together.

Councillor Hunt confirmed that a request had been made by several Councillors to fly the Palestinian Flag.  He stated that this would be considered appropriately over the coming days to make sure any decision was properly informed and was in accordance with the flag protocol, and the decision on the matter would be relayed to the requestors.

4.5.4

Question from Sahar Awadallah

“Given that raising the Israeli flag can be deemed to be standing in solidarity with an apartheid state and settler colonialism, as described by UN special Rapporteur, in addition to being contrary to S.149 of the Equality Act 2010, Palestinian citizens of Sheffield want to know when will Councillor Tom Hunt and the rest of the City Council express its official support for Sheffield’s Palestinian community, and what substantial steps will it take to prove its support?”

In response, the Leader of the Council (Councillor Tom Hunt) stated that he could not imagine the pain and worry that the Palestinian community in Sheffield and around the world were experiencing and that he expected solidarity for the Palestinian community to be expressed in the speeches and written motions and amendments to be debated later in the meeting.  He noted that thousands of pounds had already been raised by people in Sheffield over recent days to support the humanitarian aid effort in Gaza and that this reflected its citizen’s generosity, kindness and support for the Palestinian community.

4.5.5

Question from Mohammad Maroof

Prior to asking his questions, Mohammad Maroof acknowledged that the names of those Councillors involved in the decision to fly the Israeli flag had been reported earlier at the meeting, and also commended the local Labour Group politicians who had recently expressed support for an immediate ceasefire which was a stance contrary to the official stance of the Leader of the Labour Party.

“Who was involved in the decision making regarding flying the Israeli flag on Sheffield Town Hall on October 7th, please name the individuals who supported the idea if it is not something confidential?

After learning the disproportionate response to Hamas attack, over 7500 innocent civilians have been killed, amongst those are over 3000 children. The death toll is rising every hour.  Can I ask have you changed your position since October 7th that it was a dreadful decision to fly apartheid Israeli state’s flag, which caused hurt to thousands of people of our city? If you regret, why don’t you apologise publicly now?

However, if you stand by your decision and don’t apologise, would you consider stepping down before you face a vote of no confidence?

Will you accept that Israel is committing war crimes and its actions are genocide and breach of international law, and will you call for an immediate ceasefire, end Israel’s brutal occupation and free Palestine to save Palestinian and Israeli lives?”

In response, the Leader of the Council (Councillor Tom Hunt) confirmed that he had outlined earlier in the meeting the decision-making process for the raising of the flag of Israel, including the names of the Councillors involved and the reasons for deciding to fly the flag. He commented that the pain and suffering being seen is heartbreaking, and the indiscriminate attacks leading to the deaths of civilians including children, are utterly appalling and need to be condemned.  He stated that any breach of international law must be investigated and any war crime must be condemned and investigated and he added that the UK Government must support any such investigations.  Councillor Hunt stated that he believed there should now be a ceasefire and he confirmed that the statement issued yesterday by the Sheffield Labour Group called for that action.  He referred to the Motion and amendments to be debated later at this meeting, which make that same call for a ceasefire.

4.5.6

Question from Famila Hussain

Prior to asking her question, Famila Hussain commented on the escalating humanitarian crisis unfolding in the Gaza strip resulting from the actions of the Israeli Government and its forces.

“In light of the humanitarian crisis currently unfolding in the Gaza strip, the clear evidence that Israel has committed war crimes and intends to further commit war crimes against Gaza’s civilian population, and the population of Sheffield’s consistent condemnation of Israel’s actions, I ask if this Council will heed the calls of its constituents to lobby the central government to withdraw its official support of Israel? Or will it allow the continued unwavering support of a nation which has repeatedly and flagrantly violated international and humanitarian laws?”

In response, the Leader of the Council (Councillor Tom Hunt) stated that war crimes must always be condemned, international law must always be upheld and there should be no collective punishment of people in Gaza.  He advised that a distinction should be made between the government of Israel which was behind the actions, and the state of Israel.  He again referred to the Motion and amendments to be debated later at this meeting, which make the call for a ceasefire. Councillor Hunt called on the UK Government to do everything it could to condemn breaches of international law and to call for a ceasefire, the release of hostages, and for humanitarian aid to be let into Gaza.  He reiterated his view that, if there are breaches of international law, the UK Government needs to support efforts to investigate them and ensure that people are held to account.

4.5.7

Question from Hend Rashed

Prior to asking her question, Hend Rashed commented on the Council’s proud legacy of opposing apartheid regimes, for example in South Africa in the early 1980s. She added that, in 2022, Amnesty International published a report declaring Israel an apartheid state.  She referred to the fact that the South Yorkshire Pension Fund does demonstrate social responsibility in its investments, for example through its climate change policy.

“On behalf of the citizens of Sheffield who are concerned about the impact of their Pension Fund in supporting the ongoing lethal attacks on civilians in Gaza and the rising death toll from the continuous bombardment, will the Council call on the Finance Committee to review the Local Pension Fund investments and Alternative Investments and to divest from any holdings linked to Israeli settlements and companies that support colonial projects in the Occupied Territories of Palestine?"

In response, the Leader of the Council (Councillor Tom Hunt) acknowledged the importance of ensuring that investments in the pension fund were ethical.  He advised that the South Yorkshire Pensions Authority was responsible for administering the local government pension scheme in South Yorkshire, and he added that he had asked Council officers to obtain a full update regarding when the last ethical review of the Pension Fund took place, and what the outcomes of the review were.  Upon receipt of this he would provide a written response.

4.5.8

Question from Peter Jones

“Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people of Gaza. They have cut off food, water, fuel, electricity, and all means of communication, causing imminent threat to the lives of 2.2 million people, many thousands of whom have already been killed by relentless and indiscriminate bombing. Why is this Council not doing everything in its power to oppose this genocidal assault and end the complicity of the Government and official opposition in this genocide?”

Mr Jones added that the Council would be judged, not on what it said but on what it did, in relation to this matter. He stated that sides had to be taken over genocide and that the UK Government is fully supporting Israel, evidenced by its request for local authorities to fly the Israeli flag.  He also believed that the Leader of the Opposition is complicit in the genocide and he reported that both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition had received letters from the International Centre for Justice for Palestinians warning them of the Centre’s intention to prosecute UK politicians who are complicit in genocide.

In response, the Leader of the Council (Councillor Tom Hunt) stated that local Councillors would be raising their voices through their political parties, and that this Council meeting was an opportunity for them to make their views known to the citizens of Sheffield.  He underlined that there should be no collective punishment of the Palestinian people, civilians should not be targeted, and the blockade should be lifted, to allow access for essential supplies and utilities. Councillor Hunt stated that there needs to be a resumption of a peace process to ensure a just and lasting settlement for Israel and Palestine, and added that that was what he had heard the Leader of the Opposition call for yesterday.  He felt sure that from today, local Councillors will be raising their voices in Sheffield and, through their political parties, with national politicians.

4.5.9

Question from Leni Solinger

Prior to asking her question, Leni Solinger referred to the numerous local demonstrations held in the city over the past three weeks, which shows the strength of feeling that exists in Sheffield in relation to the events in Gaza.

“I am a Jewish member of Sheffield Palestine Solidarity Campaign and in November 2022 I was proud to take part in the launch of the Sheffield Coalition against Israeli Apartheid and to be one of the first to formally pledge my support to the movement to make Sheffield a city free of all links with Israeli apartheid. I lived in Sheffield when the Council supported the South African anti-apartheid movement and was proud of its moral stance then. There are many Jewish people who feel as I do about the apartheid system against Palestinians.

I am here to ask the Leader of the Council and the leaders of all the other political parties represented on this Council if you will meet, as a matter of urgency, with members of the Coalition's co-ordinating group, to discuss ways in which Sheffield City Council can ensure that it works to break all links with Israel's system of apartheid and in particular with all those companies which support Israel's apartheid regime.”

In response, the Leader of the Council (Councillor Tom Hunt) acknowledged that many citizens, from all faiths and of no faith, care deeply and are upset about the events in the Middle East.  He confirmed that he was happy to have a follow up conversation with the Group, but he felt it important to be clear that Israel could not be held to a higher standard than any other country’s government for their actions.  He reiterated his condemnation of the actions of the Netanyahu government but emphasised that they are the actions of a government, not of a nation state or an unelected regime.  Councillor Hunt added that the motion to be discussed later in the meeting contained a request for consideration to be given to the Council joining the Coalition, and if this was supported by Members it would be considered by the Strategy and Resources Policy Committee.  He stated that it would be helpful to have a conversation with the Group at that stage, prior to a decision being taken on that matter.